Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source of the information for number of reasons, the most important of which are anonymity and failure to introduce a system which would guarantee reliability. Back in 2014, a twitter exchange with judge dillard prompted an article on abovethelaw discussing the reliability of wikipedia as a resource which was an update to a post i wrote back in 2011 as it’s been a few years, it’s time to see how some recent opinions cite (or reject) wikipedia. Wikipedia as a legal authority should something that is freely editable be relied on as a source what do courts think wikipedia legal authority.
As for factual data, summaries, and subjective analysis, wikipedia is a good starting point - use it to acquaint yourself with a topic and/or follow the links to more reliable sources, but don't cite to it directly.
When using wikipedia, you may have asked yourself some variation of the question, “is wikipedia reliable” indeed, this particular question isn’t the easiest one to answer. Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources (an article is a page in the main namespace most other pages, such as wikipedia's policies and guidelines, do not need sources. A wikipedia article may be as good as (or better than) an article assigned to you by your professor, or it may contain inaccurate information and eccentric judgments. Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources if the information on another wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or middle-page in this case.
Numerous studies have rated wikipedia's accuracy on the whole, the web encyclopedia is fairly reliable, but life's little mysteries own small investigation produced mixed results. Tech industry study: wikipedia as accurate as britannica the journal nature says the open-access encyclopedia is about as accurate as the old standby.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source wikipedia editors try their very hardest to maintain this site multiple measures, such as ip-bans and article protection, are used to prevent vandalism of this site and maintain its credibility but wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This is a guideline about the types of sources which are reliable wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources (an article is a page in the main namespace most other pages, such as wikipedia's policies and guidelines, do not need sources) these sources can be in any language, not just english or simple english. Why is wikipedia not a reliable source wikipedia is a good source for getting information but, it is not always that it can be relied upon each of the.
Should you use wikipedia as a credible resource no, because even though wikipedia is one of the webs most popular reference sites, it isnt a credible resource because anyone is allowed to be a contributor to. Wikipedia is a good but perhaps not the ideal medium to drag people into philosophy the problem is here that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such not quite the medium to move people into considerations. Deletionists on wikipedia often rely on the argument that a contribution comes from an “unreliable source,” with the editor deciding what is reliable an incident last year showed the degree to which editors at the very top of wikipedia were willing to rely on this crutch when it suits their purpose. However, the results should not be seen as support for wikipedia as a totally reliable resource as, according to the experts, 13 percent of the articles contain mistakes an overview of research, suggestions, and commonly held beliefs suggest that, in general, wikipedia is quite accurate compared to textbooks (in the 80–90% range in many.
Because wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source, the use of wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper, and some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources. The creators of wikipedia are the first to admit that not every entry is accurate and that it might not be the best source of material for research papers here are some points to consider: look for a slant some articles are fair and balanced, but others look more like the leaning tower of pisa if.